|
|
|
Jewish World Review June 24, 2005 / 17 Sivan, 5765 Military Service and the Founding Fathers By Drs. Michael A. Glueck & Robert J. Cihak
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
Some issues just don't go away. That's because they tell us, not just what
to do or avoid, but what kind of people we are.
The draft is such an issue. More specifically: All the volunteers who
aren't there. The Army now expects to miss its 80,000 person recruiting
goal for this fiscal year, perhaps by 10,000 or more, even after easing
qualification requirements and increasing enlistment bonuses. Some
conservatives hold that the administration simply hasn't done a very good
job of selling the war that came out of Iraq's liberation; others contend
that young Americans are simply too self-centered to serve.
Neither is exactly true. What is certain is that so long as recruiting
continues badly and the war goes on, the Army's predicament will only worsen.
Our purpose here, however, is not to argue for or against the war, or for
or against the draft. Our purpose is to provide a bit of historical context
for assessing the whole relationship between citizenship and military
service.
HERE to purchase it at a discount. (Sales help fund JWR.).
To the Founders military service was both an obligation and a right of
citizenship. It was also a profound test of the virtue of the citizenry. A
people unwilling to bear arms in the common defense was not a people fit
for republican self-government.
However, the Founders never intended that this right and obligation should
provide the federal government with a blank check on the lives of the
citizens. The structure they set up does the exact opposite.
According to Gold, the Founders derived their understanding from both
tradition and experience. From the Greeks and Romans through the Middle
Ages, custom and law held that a citizen or free subject had an unlimited
obligation to participate in homeland defense — but in comparison only a
limited obligation, and sometimes no obligation at all, to participate in
"wars of choice" beyond borders. This was true throughout the
pre-revolutionary period. Every colony save Quaker Pennsylvania considered
virtually all adult (back then, free white male) members as part of the
"universal" or "unorganized" militia. Some would join the organized
militia, assembling periodically to drink, drill, tell stories, drill, then
drink some more. For extended or distant campaigns, a special volunteer
militia would usually be
raised.
The Constitution nowhere mentions federal conscription, although the
"Federalist" and a century's worth of Supreme Court decisions affirm that
conscription is a legitimate aspect of providing for the common defense.
However, this original omission can't be understood without reference to
the Militia Act of 1791. This legislation, ancestor of the present National
Guard system, mandated universal obligatory service at the state level,
with state forces available to the federal government in time of specific
emergency. All else was to be handled by the standing army or by volunteer
forces raised for a clear and limited purpose.
"That's the vital nexus between the citizenry and the government in this
matter," says Gold. "An absolute obligation to serve, but not to serve for
any and all reasons. This nexus has a moral as well as a legal dimension.
Things that are legal are not always moral or wise. Faith can be shattered
in many ways."
Vietnam harmed the nexus between citizenship and conscription that had
existed since World War II. America assumed, wrongly, that draftees could
be sent anywhere to do anything. And now, Iraq has harmed the nexus between
obligation and the National Guard and reserves in the same manner. While
conscript and reserve forces must be available in extremis, they cannot be
used and over-used, year after year, militarily or morally.
Not without the consent of We the People — a consent that must go much
deeper than opinion polls or Congressional resolutions, if it is to avail.
Editor's Note: Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D., penned this week's commentary.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D., is a multiple award winning writer who comments on medical-legal issues. Robert J. Cihak, M.D., is a Discovery Institute Senior Fellow and a past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Both JWR contributors are Harvard trained diagnostic radiologists. Comment by clicking here. © 2005, |
Mitch Albom | |||||||||||||||||
